“Section 249(4)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 249Section 249(4)(b)329 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 249(4)(b) is Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (13 Taxmann.com 155), cited in 14 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 249(4)(b)

Hotel Sai Siddi (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

13 Taxmann.com 155 · 2011 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee's appeal should be admitted if they incurred a loss and were therefore not liable to pay advance tax as required by section 249(4)(b). In such cases, the appeal should be decided on its merits by the CIT(A).

Vishnusharan Chandravanshi v. ITO

161 Taxmann.com 803 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee is not obligated to compute and pay advance tax under sections 208 and 209 if they have no taxable income. Consequently, an appeal should not be dismissed for non-payment of advance tax in such circumstances.

Judgments citing Section 249(4)(b)

Efy Thechnologies, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 5(4), Jpr, Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A), The Assessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

paid any amount equal to the amount of advance payable by the assessee. In this regard, reference was made to the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the appellant having not furnished any substantial cause or valid reason for non-compliance ... income tax return was furnished, and that ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal while resorting to provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, without taking into consideration said claim of the assessee-appellant. In the given situation, ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that

Anilkumar Hargovinbhai Patel, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit B Jesur, ARsFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR

Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

Revenue Authorities. Before us, the ld. AR argued that ld. CIT(A) has issued a letter to clarify the defects as mentioned in Section 249(4)(b) and the reply submitted by the assessee has not been considered and the ld. CIT(A) has not asked further to the appellant

Shampa Devprasad Sengupta, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 249(4)(b)

case and in law, the learned CIT Appeals, NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in dismissing appeal of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the I.T Act, 1961 which is illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. Shampa Devprasad Sengupta 2. On the facts ... that the appellant has agitated all the additions made in the assessment order as such there is no admitted income hence provisions of section 249(4)(b) are not applicable. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) NFAC has passed the order without providing proper opportunity to the appellant

Khammam Finance Corporation, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 855/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Y.V.Bhanu Narayan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

things. Impugned order reads that the assessee did not respond to such notice, and therefore, the learned CIT(A) invoked the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act declined to admit the appeal, and accordingly dismissed the same. 8. Hence, the assessee filed this appeal. Learned AR pleads ... that the statutory requirement contemplated under section 249(4)(b) of the Act would stand triggered only where any obligation was cast upon the assessee to pay “advance tax” and since no such obligation is there on the assessee in this case, invoking the provisions under section 249(4)(b

Anmol Developers, Ahmedabad vs. Addl/Jt/Dy./ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271FSection 69

appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that assessee failed to pay the advance tax, therefore, as per provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal is not maintainable. 2.1 Brief facts of the case, the assessee is a firm engaged in real estate ... considered by the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable observing as follows:- “3.1 As per the provisions of the section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3577/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sushant N. AlmeFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel

Section 144Section 147Section 2(24)Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 28Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

dismissed the appeal holding that the same was not liable to be admitted in view of the provisions contained in Section 249(4)(b) of the Act which read as under: “Section 249(4) 8[(4) No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing ... amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him” 8. On perusal of the above provisions contained in Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, we are of the view that the same are not applicable in the present case and therefore, the CIT(A) erred

Mohinder Chauhan, Shimla vs. ITO, W-1, Shimla

ITA 810/CHANDI/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: This Tribunal As & By Way Of Second Appeal Under The Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is Assessment Year 2010-11. The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01.04.2009 To 31.03.2010. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057469665(1) Dated 28.10.2023

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253

Return (ITR) it was incumbent upon the assessee to have paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act which in fact was not paid and instead ‘non applicable’ was stated in Form No.35 ... justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant holding that the admitted tax liability had not been paid as per the provisions of section 249(4) (b) and as such the appeal was not maintainable . Fact of the matter is that the admitted tax liability of the appellant amounted

Yalamati Raghavendra, Raichur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1854/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Yalamati Raghavendra, Vs. Ito, H No. 55 Bddival Camp – 1, Sindhanoor, Ward –1, Raichur – 584 167. Raichur. Pan : Atbpr 5348 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sawkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

merits. The reason for dismissing the appeal in limine is on account of non-payment of admitted tax as per the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The learned AR submitted that assessee had now paid the admitted tax and placed on record the challan evidencing payment

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 270/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

return nor made any claim for advance or self-assessment tax payments. Thus, the appeal could not be admitted under the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The authorized representative of the assessee were asked to provide evidence of any advance tax or self- assessment tax paid ... since the assessee had not filed return of income despite there being substantial unaccounted income, the appeal fell squarely under the provisions of section 249(4)(b), which stipulates that no appeal shall be admitted unless the advance tax owed has been paid. Ld. CIT(Appeals) noted that the assessee

Shri Nagin A Vaghela, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

ITA 1562/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 158B

Jaikaran Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1457/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 144Section 144oSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

dated 09/02/2024,dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on the ground that the Appeal is not admissible as per the proviso of Section 249 (4)(b) of the Act as the Assessee has not paid the amount equal to the 4 Jaikaran Nagar Vs. ITO amounts of advance tax.As ... time of filing of the appeal, the assessee has paid the tax due or the income returned by him. As per provision of section 249(4)(b) the appeal will not be admitted unless at the time of filing the appeal, the assessee has paid an amount equal

Jaladi Geetha Padmaja, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 910/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Jaladi Geetha Padmaja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Nellore. Ward – 1, Nellore. Pan : Acdpj9507E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri U Mini Chandran, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U Mini Chandran, Sr.AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

dismissed the appeal of assessee as not eligible for admission by holding as under : 4 “3. Decision : As per the provisions of the section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance ... offer proper clarification as to why she did not pay amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, for the reasons best known to her. In view of the above, I am of the view that to meet

Maroofali I Shaikh, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bagalkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 981/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2015-16, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Grounds on dismissal on first appeal under section 249(4)(b) of the Act: a. The learned CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limeine by relying on the provisions of section 249(4 ... required u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. The assessee has also not made any application as per the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act due to which there is no opportunity for the ld. CIT(A) to examine the reason for exemption from the operation

Jeeta Ram, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1851/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

unwarranted, the issue cannot be remitted to ld. CIT (A) as the CIT (A) cannot entertain the appeal unless the provisions of section 249(4)(B) is complied. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of JAO to verify the contention of the assessee

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 800/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 799 & 800/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) बनाम/ Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Ito Jain Ward - 1(2)(3), Vs. 22 Jakorbal Chamber, Opp. Ahmedabad Madhubaug Panchkuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpj6013E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. Dr 19/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/10/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.12.2023 & 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had made specific enquiry regarding fulfillment of conditions as stipulated in Section 249(4)(b) of the Act vide letter dated 20.12.2023, which was not complied by the assessee and, therefore, he had rightly dismissed the appeal ... action of the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on the technical ground cannot be held as correct. As per proviso to Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has power to exempt the assesse from operation of the provision of that clause. Therefore

Mr. Kantilal Laxmichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 799/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 69A

Shiv Kumar, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (4), Rohtak

In the result, impugned order is set aside, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.900/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Shiv Kumar, H.No. 313/21, Old Housing Board Colony, Rohtak, Haryana 124001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Edgpk-2501-F

For Appellant: Ms. Sanju Kumari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar , Sr. DR

Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

outset on the ground that the assessee has failed to fulfill condition of payment of advanced tax in accordance with the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 2 referred to as 'the Act’). She stated that the assessee did not file return ... Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defending the impugned order submitted that the assessee did not comply with the mandatory conditions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act, hence, the CIT(A) had no option but to reject appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, order

Udaysingh Shankarrao Patil, Kavane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1658/PUN/2024[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1658/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250

before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned dismissed the appeal in limine for non payment of advance tax invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. The ld. AR submits that ... addition made in the assessment there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to pay the advance tax. The provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act have no application to the facts of the present case. The assessee was not required to pay advance

State Board of Technical Education and Training Ap, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 147/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 147/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) State Board Of Technical Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Education & Training Ap, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aawas9250P Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 25/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

NFAC. 3. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by observing as under: “3. Decision As per the provisions of the section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall ... this office nor did he offer any reason, leave alone any good and sufficient reasons, for seeking exemption from the operation of the section 249(4)(b) even though sufficient opportunities were provided to him On careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has failed

Sree Sai Sameera Pharmacy, Nandigama vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 103/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 103/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sree Sai Sameera Pharmacy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 22-135, Ankamma Temple Street, Ward-1(1), Nandigama, Krishna District, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh – 521185. Pan: Acvfs1385F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 10/09/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

249(4), No appeal shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal, the prescribed conditions are satisfied. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance ... that there was business loss, the question of paying the advance tax does not arise. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the provisions of section 249(4)(b) does not apply to the case of the assessee. Further, in our view, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have decided